In all fairness (God forbid that we get into that), Reid went on say, and apparently tell the President, that there had to be substantive changes in military, diplomatic and economic policy in order to pull this thing out and that the policies the President seems determined to pursue aren’t working. Won or lost, it seems to me, are simplistic measures better suited to John Wayne movies and comic book analysis that to the real world. The real question is whether after all this time, all this money, all these lives there is any significant movement toward a stable and US friendly government in Iraq that actually has control of the territory and population–or any reasonable prospect of it. Manifestly that isn’t happening. Worse than that the nation’s ability to pursue the President’s policies is now compromised – just look at the Regular, National Guard and Reserve formations that are rotating back to Iraq and Afghanistan without the necessary training, personnel and equipment.
I suppose that another measure of how things are going is to look at the publicly stated objectives and reasons for the invasion in the first place. Iraq certainly doesn’t have and nuclear weapons now, and is not about to share them with non-state jahadist organizations. Saddam is certainly out of power. Maybe we won a couple of years ago but have just failed to recognize it. Maybe we should do just what some wit suggested that we do in Vietnam: declare victory and get the hell out.
My own take is that this Administration is so heavily invested in the John Wayne approach to Iraq that it cannot even consider any other approach without suffering what it sees as a devastating loss of face. All it can do now is posture, spend more time, more lives, more money and more national credibility to desperately hold on in the expectation that some new Administration will have to clean up the debris and then can be accused of losing the Middle East because of a lack of will. In my childhood “Who lost China” was a widespread political rallying cry. I fear that “Who lost Iraq” will be the same thing for my grandchildren.
I note with some sadness that the First Battalion, Twenty-Eight Infantry Regiment (the Black Lions of Cantigny) is now is South Bagdad trying to keep the Sunni and Sh’ia militias away from each other and is being shot at by both.
I think the most annoying part of this debate is that people think the people who want to pull out are simply being defeatist or against our whole plan there. If there were some way we could magically make it all okay there, I’d be willing to put a lot of effort into that. The problem is the aimless nature of the whole operation from beginning to end. Basically it was, “Go in and hope that it goes our way” Well it didn’t and we’ve been screwing up ever since.
We are basically there trying to keep all the groups from killing each other. Unfortunately these groups not only have gotten worse, they are also biding their time until we leave, which will have to happen.
The most annoying part of the won/lost debate is that those who prefer to keep trying can’t even imagine how things could get better. It’s not, “Well let’s just try this, we think it will work, because X, Y, and Z reasons” It’s nothing like that, it’s simply “it’s working, be patient. Look at these results!” But it’s obviously NOT working. The best way forward, I believe is for the Republicans and Democrats to not divide it between keep doing what we’re doing, or leave, but rather, “How can we both be realistic?” Come to think of it I think I’ll start a GD thread about what can possibly be done outside of “Stay the Course” and “Cut and Run”
One of the most nonsensical, bullshit arguments I’ve heard from this administration (and the bar is pretty high for that) is that if we set a deadline to leave the insurgent groups will mark their calenders and “wait us out.”
Unless we stay there forever, they will always be able to wait us out. Whether we leave a year from now, ten years from now, even a hundred years from now. It’s their country. Sunnis and Shias have been feuding for centuries. They aren’t going to just magically go away.
Just one other thing that often gets overlooked… Do you realize that the 2008 withdrawl date in the Senate bill is nonbinding? This posturing between Congress and the WH is a bit surreal, if you ask me. Bush talks a big game, but he knows damn well that even if signs whatever bill passes, he will be able to dodge around an explicit exit date. I’m afraid that the only way to get him to end his little Iraq adventure is to impeach him (and Cheney), remove him from office, and put someone else in there. If the Dems want to do that, it’s fine with me.
The game is to make Bush veto funding the troops, to neutralize the charge that the Democrats aren’s supporting them. It is also to make him publicly refuse to accept the end of his war on his watch, not the next guy’s. Even a nonbinding date forces him to accept responsibility for his actions. Yes, of course it matters.
You’re also rash in assuming this is the *end * of the “game”.
The USA made a huge error in invading and destabilizing Iraq. Without the US occupation of Iraq, Iran will have much greater influence over Iraq. The USA is generally opposed to Iran, therefore . . .
Now it is a matter of trying to put together Humpty Dumpty together again – an impossibility. The USA has lost the war and cannot bring about peace, but must continue to occupy Iraq so as to present a foil to Iran.
Bush appears bent on sticking to his statement that the final resolution of the Iraq adventure is for his successor. In continuing to claim progress he ignores what’s happening. Civilian casualties are increasing, the Iraqi politicians are making no progress toward a unified government and it seems that training Iraq security forces is no longer very important.
If Bush believes that things are working better he is a fool. If he doesn’t believe it but continues to say so, he is a charlatan. Of course, being a fool and a charlatan aren’t mutually exclusive.
Are you basically there trying to keep all the groups from killing each other…? I didn’t know that, and frankly I believe the vast majority or the world population world got it all wrong. Call the UN, this will change things.
Of course the war is lost. And moreover, everyone knows it’s lost, because everyone knows that if we had any idea how to straighten this thing out, we’d have done it years ago. But no one wants to admit it, because the first one to admit it is the one who’ll get the blame for losing it. How’s that for justice? So Reid gets some credit in my book for saying the L word, but as John Mace says, he has to try a little harder to show the courage of his convictions. And it wouldn’t hurt if he could find a few friends to stand along with him.
It’s just a damn shame that we have to drag out the losing for another year or two.
Well, it’s the Bush regime’s fault for not being honest about what we were doing in the first. Dishonesty about why we invaded led to obfuscation of goals (military and otherwise)–without clearly defined goals and logical reasons for them, there is nothing to win. Which is where we are.
Ironically, we did win the war. We clobbered Saddam’s troops, knocked over his regime, and had him executed. “Mission Accomplished” was correct as far as the invasion and war on Saddam’s regime was concerned.
The major fubar aspect is the occupation. Without honesty and clearheadedness, the occupation was doomed to failure from the beginning. Trying to drum up jingoistic support for a “war” that’s really a hostile occupation cannot be efficacious for long, especially in the face of catastrophic failure. Bush’s most grievous error was a direct consequence of the mendacity which has so characterized his administration from the beginning.
Your premise is based on the fact that the Bush regime slid an unpopular military action past the congress and did so in the face of well expressed opposition by the American People.
Oh, wait, that’s not how it happened.
We are in this war because a very strong majority of the American People really wanted to kick some towel head ass to get even for the WTC bombing. Politics just follows that.
Not exactly. That might explain Afghanistan, but before the war the majority of people wanted to invade only with UN sanction. Do you think there would be much support if they were told that Saddam had no connection to 9/11, and that there was no good evidence of WMDs based on UN inspections?
After the invasion, everyone rallied around the troops of course.
What the fuck?!